Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott Bloom

[Music] good evening ladies and gentlemen my name is David Thoreau and I the privilege of being the president of the independent Institute I'm glad to welcome you to our program this evening as many of you may know the independent Institute holds programs like this debates lectures and other presentations which we call the independent Policy Forum and tonight we're greatly pleased to welcome two distinguished scientists dr. Willie soon and dr. Elliott bloom who will be speaking tonight on global warming fact or fiction and I want to especially thank dr. Terry and mrs. Carolyn Gannon for their wonderful assistance in making tonight possible so thank you very much those of you who are new to the independence suit you'll also find information in your packet about us I also point out that in keeping with tonight's topic we included five summaries of papers by dr. soon in your packet as well as a copy of the testimony by dr. John Christie who is from the University of Alabama and I'll make mention about that in a minute dr. Christie gave the testimony before the House Committee on Science Space and Technology he's a distinguished professor in his own right of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System science center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville so I hope you'll enjoy that and that material I think you'll see be quite relevant to our discussion this evening independent Institute is a Public Policy Research Institute we have about 140 fellows we produce lots of books we also produce the independent review and there's some sample copies out on the book table we were thrilled also to feature a book this evening called hot talk called science by one of our research fellows his name is Fred singer anyone the mission of independent stability advanced peaceful prosperous and free societies grounded in a commitment to human Worth and dignity and the results of that work does result in the books and publications I mentioned as well as organizing various conference and media programs like tonight that we're delighted to be hosting the issue for tonight is one of great dispute a lot of emotion a lot of contention the major presentation this evening is going to be done by dr. Willie soon I should mention that the issue of global warming sort of boils down to a number of questions is global warming real our manmade co2 emissions a dangerous imminent and irreversible threat to life on Earth have such predictions been scientifically established have the forecasts from the many co2 based climate models been right and if not why not what about solar influences on climate including on the clouds on the oceans on wind and what would massive carbon taxes or perhaps the green New Deal and other controls produce for the people of America and indeed the world especially the poor dr. Soong himself receive his PhD with distinction and aeronautical engineering from the University of Southern California he's been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory a senior scientists at the George C Marshall Institute seizure visiting fellow with the state key laboratory of marine environmental science at Simon University a professor of University of Environmental Studies at the University of cuchara in Malaysia he's the author of a number of books as well as over snidey scientific papers he was a recipient of the I Triple E nuclear and plasma science Society award the rockwool science hunt award the Smithsonian Institution award the courage and defense of science award and many others the renowned physicist Freeman Dyson and William happer both with attachments to Princeton have both claimed dr. Soong for his exceptional courageous and indeed path working work in and passion for science so it gives me great pleasure to welcome dr. Willy soon thank you all for coming tonight I hope everybody can hear me yes okay but if it's a problem at the accent you just blame it I'll go I tend to have this tecna's tennessee type of a language well I really thank you all you know it's full house right I mean my typical size of audience is five so I really really humbly appreciate everybody for coming my job is rather easy tonight cause I want to talk about this gasps is satanic gasps we will call it you know this satanic gas called co2 carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide according to the wisdom of what you call the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that says that if you were to keep putting this carbon dioxide into the atmosphere the go the globe is gonna warm the sea is gonna rise the polar bear is gonna say stop drinking coca-cola and say goodbye and many many other problems by the way your kids will get ADHD all kinds of problem they'll be more marijuana and all that stuff you know so on and so forth I'm here trying to tell you that this co2 is not that powerful in that sense the only thing it does in the system is actually make the planet greener so I apologize if this really bothers anyone and I also wanted to say that you know in the in the spirit of science I will at least try to tell you that if there's anything that I say often anybody I humbly apologize first because I tends to have the tendency to be a bit more hyper excited but my passion is very sincere it's all about signs all the way down it's all about science nothing else because if I want to be wrong and say anything that's not truthful you just hang me right here right no problem let's just talk about it if there's anything that we disagree let's talk about it and most important of all if anything that is not clear at all y'all can look for independent Institute Tarragona on my good friend in fact I also want to acknowledge my three Irish colleagues from Ireland these are the most excellent scientist I've ever had the privilege to work with and we're gonna have a team to try to discuss what is co2 claimed by all this war expert that it turns out to be not so the most important since about science is clear right I mean I have a code here by Professor Richard Feynman he's among the finest physicists America ever seen and it's really to try to get to the essence that science is not about consensus have you heard about that consensus business 97% I mean the kind of stuff they're pooling is very very bad actually all this 97 99% consensus it means nothing it's all about actually asking a simple question like do you do you think that climate will change of course I'm one of those 97% it's a pure nonsense it's nothing about science science is about what are the facts what are the evidence and so and so forth there is a very famous statement by Professor Albert Einstein I hope we all heard about him right to say that when he published his stuff on general relativity there's this 100 Berlin academician who wrote a report against Einstein relativity and the guy with the wisdom by the name of Einstein say why would you even need a hundred if I would be wrong one would suffice right in my humble opinion after studying this topic for close to thirty years now there really this code is very meaningful there's never been something about the scientific field that you really try very very hard to make sure that you all don't get sway away by people like myself the deniers and so on and so forth that you know you make sure that you don't hear us so I think independent Institute for providing this forum I hope I don't embarrass any one of you they really try very hard and then every time that you say though you wanna oh I want to ask a question no no no no question you just believe us every time you say can we have a little debate I don't understand your facts can you explain to me did you say no no no I'll go say so so we go to this next one is another one one of the war expert is the EPA achieve freedom responsibility openness of government etc let me ask you what percentage of the atmosphere is co2 what percentage of the atmosphere is co2 I don't have that calculation for you sir maybe you could tell us what your personal gifts is on what percentage co2 I I don't make those guesses sir you're the head of the EPA you don't know you've based you have all these laws basically oh you're gonna get your staffer to tell you now but you're the head of the EPA and you did not know what the what percent and and now you are basing 12 policies that impact dramatically on the American people and you didn't even know the faith what the content of co2 in the atmosphere was which is the justification for the very policies you're talking about if you're asking me how much co2 is in the atmosphere not a percentage but how much we have just reached levels of four that was very clear what I was asking I'm very clear you didn't know let me ask you if co2 from what I have understand it's the bigger point these folks want to regulate they don't want to even study signs right it's so hard I mean sorry you know I wish I can be a jellyfish some day well we have a problem in the West right it's been known that that's all this while ranging forest fire is damaging our homes and so on and so forth right whatever the reason is apparently the professor Jim Hansen from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies by the way you all know who he is right he's the father of global warming he's the man who testified in a Senate in 1988 making a clear statement that he's 99% sure that he has already seen the global warming effect by the carbon dioxide okay this is telling you the level of stuff is doing he's presenting this top to show that the the forest fire numbers burn in the areas he's been increasing okay and he showed data from 1960 to about 2017 or so and this is based on a talk with children a student at the symposium in Taiwan and I have to say that you know that seems very convincing isn't it if you are big Authority coming from America former you know NASA director and I think that God is angry right here right you know something is burning but the problem is he's pulling such a childish sort of thing he put her actually a link to the dinner set where he got it from but he forgot that the whole dinner sets it's available from 1926 or so why would he do such a thing you know he basically you understand right he was showing you only that little part but he forgot to show you from 1926 to 1960 isn't that childish are we are we serious about signs and these are called scientists right and I'm not supposed to tell people about this I don't even know why he bothered to do this actually so professor Henson hello what but what happened when you do bad science this is part of the stuff that I have passion about you know when you mess around with sign you mess around with me right what happened well you got you got a wart I don't care how many or what he wins it doesn't matter okay it is that kind of problem the reverse incentive signs you're not only not doing science you had to do something anti signs to get an award right so this be boy to me they're just burning everything away you know it's dangerous dangerous don't do that man because life is much more beautiful than that one should not do that this is just a sneak preview on my own study with my friend from unity of Mexico by the name of Victor Velasco we've been looking into the forest fire statistics this is simply just to show you that the wall fire statistics from about 1930s or so until now and then we make a forward fork forward forecast we analyzed the data it turns out that the data has very strong what you call every 10 year kind of psycho yes also every four years kind of cycle and then we trained the computer using some of this algorithm called artificial intelligent intelligence to actually make some forward forecasts just simply to show that you can do some of this exercise and I don't mean that I already know everything but this is just an example of what science is all about and then we know that is somewhere now so I am obligated to show this chat from Professor John Christie or Eunice T or Alabama Huntsville is to show you all this record daily hottest temperature in United State University has a very good temperature record so we can go back about from 1895 until now you can see it's been changing up and down but then what we have now is just what it is that's always right you have nothing to do with this because they tend to use that Oh every time there's a heat wave it has to be global warming right the next one I'm gonna show you that the qu the co wave when you have excessive snow this shall be done by the former science advisor to President Obama by the name of John Holdren that's what he say he says that with global warming we're gonna have more CO extreme please make sure you understand that facts what I like to remind who John Rowe Holdren is right John Holdren is one of those in my opinion has been very much an activist from day one of course that's the only reason why he got selected but he's by President Obama and then he's the kind of type to say that you have too much energy is kind of bad for people right because we'll be like giving little kids a machine gun yeah so it is known and this is even cited in scientifically richer because he's a very well-known character right he's a science advisor to the president so in scientific paper people even psych him that saying that with global warming we're gonna have extreme cold wave okay but it is known look at what the title say right of this scientific paper let's say that we actually will have a lot less psycho extreme isn't it that kind of makes sense right but every time there's a call wave during the winter they send out guys like John Holdren coming to defend this status quo of their effects another paper by more distinguished scientist RPO Schneider is among the best climate dynamics is from Caltech clearly also say that global warming will lead to less frequent Co outbreaks in Northern Hemisphere winter that's basically what signs say he probably didn't want to call out to find out the answer right and worse yet it is well known the IPCC themselves it's actually saying that they have long predicted that when you have global warming you ought to at least have less snowstorm isn't it so if you don't believe me this is what IPCC say mother winter temperature will decrease heavy snowstorm so this is the type of political game and so-called experts are selling to the rest of the world and of course this joke is basically yes I know it's gonna cover up the dead bird the next artistics I'm gonna show you is about hurricane TC is tropical cyclone the activity is going from about 1970 to now the reason why you start in 1970 here is because this is the satellite era where we have satellite to look at all the statistics so rather more accurate but the point is where is the killer trend you look at anything you want right tropical cyclone or extreme hurricane it going up and down up and down up and down right where's the carbon dioxide I'll go and then if you look at the more relevant the impact type the the tropical cyclone that actually land on the you know come to the land and sort of cause damages category 1 2 3 & 4 this hour 3 & 4 & 5 are of course bad because the wind speed is high probably a lot more rain as well he's pretty much up in now up and now really this is the stuff that they actually will create all kinds of so-called paper scientific papers to try to make claim that our co2 can actually not change the statistics but may make the hurricane stronger and more energetic sand things like that but unfortunately it's not so true okay picking it up here and Wilmington North Carolina right at the Intracoastal and we're in one of these bands this is a Madison nasties is big we had some bands like this latest night and then the eyewall this morning we're not on TV it was the dark Ken raucous night at the hotel and this wind because the other day we have this tropical sight some very just move in so you can see the statistics for yourself if you look at all the landfalling hurricane in Louisiana for example the statistics go rather far back right 1851 and they're July 13 of 2019 I don't think you can claim anything out of this sort of thing nature is what it is actually as far as constant we cannot find any carbon dioxide fingerprinting all these all these statistics so one other things that we want to learn is always like that you really every time you hear what do no wonder they say for example some people worry why am i showing so many child because you know why woods are very bad because they are able to deceive you you have to learn them every time they say this and that you ask them where is the data I want to see the data my good friend from Ireland say where's the data right let's look at the data the first data I want to look at is to NATO for example this is among the three strongest the one that is tornado that is up to 140 miles an hour kind of wind up to 200 miles an hour kind of win f3 to f5 and showing you the statistics from 54 now I don't know I mean maybe they like to say global warming causing the trend to go now or no it's not possible it's not possible joking aside you have to study this issue carefully and I my good friend the meteorologist Joba study who say that you know especially this 2019 we have a lot of tornado in a Midwest but the blame on on global warming is completely baloney right because this May was very cold by the way so to form tornado you need very sharp gradient very warm in the tropics and a very corner lane here then you possibly can have that because just a year ago the Maine was very warm here's the slide that you should see right on your left is the one that last year when you are very warm on the land you can no tornado activity at all in the May but this year kind of very cold in the Midwest you tend to have a lot more tornado formation it's just the opposite of what they say by the way now I want to talk about because by the way this carbon dioxide changing any other weather and climate statistics just couldn't find too many of this around by the way to be honest with you if I can find one I will show you tonight I couldn't find one that's my thing you can as all my friends here they're always like this with practicing sienten they are looking for this thing now I'm going to talk about a new scare it's called osteoporosis of the sea okay this is actually a quote the osteoporosis of the sea by the way language manipulation is one of those I actually taught I'll go you are the manipulator of the English language then you see things like that they say they create this thing to create a mental picture they want to make sure you understand you noticed when you don't have carbon dioxide global warming when the carbon dioxide in the ratio tends to go down into the ocean it's going to make the ocean more acidic Oh scary right so one of these so-called marine biologists who is also a boma Obama appointee Undersecretary of NOAA dr. Jane Lubchenco who isn't actually now a Oregon Oregon State saying that you know any plans any anything they have a shell if you have more this stuff like oyster and crab they will be actually melting away because it's more acidified scary so you know what it's very simple you just do an experiment the first thing we do is that we're gonna study this Lobster under the condition of 400 parts per million carbon dioxide by the way that's 0.04 percent right you breathe out it's almost four percent so let's ask also if we run the experiment seven times more which is about 2800 parts per million what happened to the lobster he grew bigger Oh what's wrong with her the second one we can test this crap cause they mentioned Lobster and cramps I'll show you that seven time it's also grow bigger you know I must be pulling a stunt remember what I just tell you this is an experiment actual experiment being conducted in science experiment means what you you you any one of us you want to do we just go do it just be careful with your experimental procedure okay and the problem is there are a lot of these kind of scary things around that you probably have seen I will show you one you know dissolving self picture you probably have seen those how God has used those obviously look chenko has used this Jindo check god no one secretary show picture like this from day zero day 16 to day 45 the shell was very nice and shiny and then it's kind of rope eroded away Willy soon is lying to you well go home refund boy pay money back unfortunately this is another one of those magic trick they did not conduct the experiment that you have carbon dioxide and any bubble through the system and caused the change in the carbonate bicarbonate cycle so don't study chemistry tonight but something like that you have to study this properly instead what they do is that as I put a coat here I better not mean talking about it these are all expert studying all this topic like that's what they do instead of letting the co2 bubble through the system they put weak hydrochloric to speed up the process because they don't even want to wait for the equilibration of the system those experiment that I show you takes about two three months work properly okay and they do that you don't want another one this someone was famous because in the newspaper she quoted she's Obama supporter things like that supposed to gain more credibility right I don't care just be honest in science you never ever tell lies okay and then yes this is just one more extra coaches that make sure that you understand because these people have been running expert Japanese - Japanese probably not influenced by US politics right they also show that they have Rondo's experiment by by just adding weak hydrochloric acid instead of running the carbon dioxide to show the effects so every time when I see this I remind myself on this so go going on this road let's be careful there's always shocks around so let's get back to global warming right this is the typical graph they show from about 1880 to now let's say right you make sure that all the globe is warming if you show the relationship with carbon dioxide oh my god did you see it it's almost a perfect correlation if you plot the carbon dioxide on the horizontal axis that the global temperature on this is perfect correlation we all know another important lesson in science right correlation doesn't mean causation right if you really believe that this is to be true I'll close door go home now really seriously because you know why I told herida I want to get a lot of chocolate all of you guys because according to some statistical study that the more chocolate you consume the more chances of you winning Nobel Prizes guys anyway prices are the most deceptive business about science actually well let's study this carbon dioxide right let's study that within the context of energy flow within a climate system the first reminder I want to remind everybody is that it turns out that this climate is among the most misunderstood subject because I'll go the average D student thinks that he understand climate my god is as sure as gravity you always say that you guys are just denier right but to understand climate you need to study what astronomy solar physics geology geochronology geochemistry sedimentology tectonic paleontology paleoecology Glaciology climatology meteorology oceanography ecology ecology history and that's not even complete and this guy's say that if we just change the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere that we're gonna control the whole system it's a bit ridiculous actually right and then when those people say that what's the difference between weather and climate right they always say Oh climate is something like because according to warm in the organic organization its 30-year average of the weather that may be very nice to teach student is true you need to give them pedagogical expect which means long-term average but who say it's thirty-year he could easily be 50-year could be easily be a hundred years right this is all the kind of stuff that is you know not quite the truth it's only half truth right do we just really want to learn have true to all my our life have true Plus have true you know it really doesn't add to a truth right it's actually a pure lie you cannot send a man to the to the moon like that okay it's a joke actually be serious science is very serious so greenhouse effect well I'm not gonna explain it because my friend gonna kick me because we study this issue very carefully but the idea is that you you add up more carbon dioxide molecules is in its interact with the energy flow in the climate system and you tend to you if you have more carbon dioxide you will tend to warm the climate okay so let's study this coming out so if who thinks that the most important greenhouse gas in the climate is carbon dioxide oh very smart audience it's actually it's X yeah it's actually h2o really its water vapor right in all forms in the vapor snow and ice and liquid form right that's in fact half of the job if we want to study climate change and all that you really need to study hydrology okay and just to give you an Exim example don't mind a complexity all the arrows is meant to tell you that you know please don't get confused but then is to try to show you the climate is really complex okay and I'm going to show you if I click on the individual component and compare the row of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the climate system let's say who is in charge right so first thing we go is we keep clicking all the blue one turns out to be controlled by water vapor there's no area ice area surface vapor pressure relative humidity soil moisture evaporation everything is blue and then they say that if you just change the carbon dioxide that you're gonna get that you're gonna control the climate system that's basically what it is and then when you come down to water vapor they occasionally like to put a picture like this the one from power plan right by the way please understand you cannot see co2 okay some some kids from Sweden the late named Greta to book say that you can see carbon dioxide actually this is how bad it is right instead of going to school to learn that carbon dioxide is in infrared you cannot see this thing okay and she said that you can see co2 so it's just a bit of a joke I just wanted to point out that the raw co2 a water vapor is very important in a climate system so I'm showing you to graph okay top and bottom the top graph is actually temperature the bottom is water vapor okay and I'm showing you the distribution from South Pole to the North Pole and then in the vertical coordinates it's actually going from zero to about 20 kilometers right what I'm showing you is that temperature and water vapor at one instant of time okay it shows you that as you have more water vapor the area tends to be warmer as you're less water vapor is tends to be cooler okay let's show you how close a relationship of temperature and and water vapor is in a climate system and then in terms of time at least we have two satellite measurements the blue curve is actually showing you the temperature measurement and then the red curve is actually showing you the water vapor concentration in the atmosphere detected by the satellite radio meter okay they're pretty close relationship then I'm going to show you this because the ultimate things about science is about test right you have an hypothesis carbon dioxide increase what does it do increase the greenhouse effect yes so a paper that published two years or three years ago indeed trying to quantify this issue and it tends to find that the last few years you tend to have this so-called flattening of the greenhouse effect which I will show you by this graph from 1980 to 1991 or so this appears to be some kind of increase of the greenhouse effect and then by by the time you reach about 92 93 if you keep plotting the greenhouse effect it seems to be flat going up and down so what this is telling you is that if you study the energy flow in the climate system that the last few decades has been flattening that's just even though the carbon dioxide is rising is true that one is still true by the way but the greenhouse effect has been flat so what does it tell you it you that carbon dioxide is heavier playing a minor role in the total greenhouse effect in the climate system really because this effect of flattening is caused by Tooting the cancellation between the water vapor and the cloud effects okay but not controlled by carbon dioxide at all this is actual measurements if you don't like this look at the result from from Antarctica and Arctic they measure something called the outgoing long-wave radiation satellite could do those things it's showing you something like this so I I think in terms of testing the empirical effects of what carbon hours I do that this system is fairly convincing that no such thing exists and then when you come down to global warming just remember - every time they say that if I warm the have more carbon dioxide I'm gonna warm the climate by a few degree let's say but the few degree in the context of City like a Boston and basically showing you that daily temperature in Boston from January to December okay and then they say the global warming gonna change by two or three or four or five degrees Fahrenheit let's say on this skill we go from anything from ten degree Fahrenheit to eighty degree Fahrenheit and we are talking about this tiny thing that is very hard to detect even if you allow there that theoretical speculation to be true so in then I'll just conclude that I'm going to protest gonna save the earth I'm gonna stop continental dream anyways joking aside the future of the of this plate tectonics is also studied attempted I don't think we should believe in this two hundred fifty million years in the future but you know they will be united again I guess in doing a fifty million years from now so is it true that most of this taxpayer funded scientists are just honors I wanted to provide neutral and reliable data sets that's really a serious question to ask and then just want to remind ourselves in 1907 in publication of the American Meteorological Society people talk about this already that we should be honor we should not be messing around with data and so on and so forth so I want to show you this case that is very very outrageous what I'm plotting here is three curve to curve is basically the blue and the red curve they are what you call the satellite temperature temperature measurement of the global temperature from about 1990 something to about let's say present time it's going up and now that is flat right this is what the famous thing called the global warming hiatus it's not warming up or the carbon dioxide is still rising and then another dataset that show is rising is produced by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies the the two satellite data is measuring something from a layer about few kilometers up from the atmosphere what is measured by NASA is Goethe Institute for systole the green curve is from the surface thermometer data we don't believe that data is true of course by the way so while walking on those classes our problem but here I want to refer to a case by the group called RSS they are from Santa Rosa somewhere here there they are actually showing that curve in 2016 and then I want to remind because every time that in size that if you can do as many independent measurement can that you can they're becoming more interesting I just want to remind you on the middle pen or the RSS and the unit UNC Alabama Huntsville data agree with each other there's a flat trend but there's actually a data set that is measured by another technique okay from a Taiwanese group they're actually using some very special technique of looking through the atmosphere and do that sort of thing radio or quotation for people who wants to know it actually show satellite flat fat trend by the way so what do we do we have three data set four or five data sets three of them kind of show flat in here right because they're measuring the hemisphere and this guy from the surface showing the warming so is it really true that this hiatus is so called hiatus you understand this right if the temperature is knowing coming is rising do you actually consider this a disaster for them instead of saying that hey maybe that we are wrong carbon dioxide is not important oh no no no no this you will do is check all the foundation you don't like it okay so they started to say that these are fantasy created by people like myself okay so they have BBC say what happened what happened we need to study this and then you even have sorry for the code but anyway there are folks in scientific community talking among themselves saying that we're in trouble now because we can what this why the temperature is not warming up so it shows you that they are worried internally and even worse a very famous professor by the name of professor Phil Jones from UK was actually writing to his colleague from the UK meteorological Met Office because they were making forecast they even forecast that the the temperature will keep flat for about 2020 remember this okay I'll make the point later because even forecast is showing that it's gonna show flat because you know they want to show that they can predict this oh we understood this thing but you were warm again you just wait you just wait it's gonna warm again and look what happened three years later our address temperature now agree with the Goethe Institute for Space Studies so if the data don't fit your theory what do you do you change the data guys be smart that's okay so they were talking things like that the beginning to talk among themselves that maybe you know satellite data by the way is measuring something in the troposphere like few kilometers up the air it's actually a good measurement because they're measuring something from the vibration of this oxygen molecule that is very uniform okay because it's very same amount of constant 21% everywhere carbon dioxide there will be a lot in this room few thousand parts per million outside is four hundred things like that it's very good and then now they say the surface the moment the data that has all kinds of problem is okay so this is the summary when the data don't feed you just change the data okay so I'll just provoke this I'm gonna send this ransom note right give us the dollar or you will fry guys you'll get all kinds of problem please pay here with IPCC then I'm gonna get into another case that is very serious this is very serious the men on the right or laugh is michael men and then the other one is the famous Bill Nye the Science Guy celebrity but anyway this is concerning a very serious problem Michael Mann is well known and associated with a phenomenon called hockey-stick temperature history this is actually a paper that's been produced showing that the temperature could not change much from a 1080 to 1980 very flat and then a warm up from 1902 now zoom it up never mind the hiatus of course and then most people are studying this flat pad okay actually I produce a paper myself in fact my paper was the first one ever produced in 2003 now I want to focus in on a blade problem okay let me show you I wrote a scientific paper just to make a point to say that we studied this issue carefully and then I want to tell you that Michael Mann was very worried about this how he put out in a blog saying that oh there's this so-called attack people in science when somebody criticized a work you'll be very very happy you've an an honor scientist was according to Michael Connelly my good friend saying that we learn more than right instead of saying oh this guy is attacking me he's from denier Club and so on and so forth so he actually claimed blamed that you know I was trying to attack IPCC no Michael Mann I was attacking your work not IPCC really he was so proud he was so proud that he tried to stop my paper from publishing he was influencing this American Geophysical Union that published that journal Geophysical Research Letters wire printed in 2004 calling them that I have violated a copyright in my paper therefore the people shall not be published let me show you the problem you can look here it's a bit hard for me okay laughs okay from left to right you have three data sets my command 2002 Michael Mann at all 2003 and men Michael Mann in June 2003 and then the the one to your right is my results I try to emulate whether you can get this temperature change this is actually the temperature change for the last 150 years or so right you notice that in - less than one and a half years 2002 to about 2003 you notice that the end curve the red curve is what I want you to focus on it keep changing you keep going higher do you understand what it means it's impossible under any data any condition the data could not change by one year especially this one is four year filter your smoothie also you don't want to study there do you Changez so you study the long-term changes do you understand this is this is the part where nobody discusses actually a published paper on this to point out that I consider this case is a scientific fraud in my humble opinion okay he came back and talked nonsense again it's very sad how many years already 2004 okay you think about it and he was very proud there's actually a proof that he actually talked among himself that he was so probably soon gonna have this paper coming out but I was so powerful and Michael Mann I'm able to stop him okay because he was colluding with the American Geophysical Union Geophysical Research Letters folks about able to stop me from painting unfortunately I was rather smart by that time actually I've gotten all the permission to redraw the figures and you show it the way I show it okay there's nothing wrong with actually taking a sign oh another very simple point about signs you all believe right if you have a data that makes something and then you've already published your paper do you think that we can should ask them to get the data so we can check that data do we agree raise your hand and you know what is the typical answer right no no no the dog ate my homework no you cannot have it if I give it to you you just want to destroy my I did that kind of work okay I'm not joking this is how serious science is and these are always the outside they're doing that if they ask ourself or not and Ronan Connolly that they want our data please in fact every time we publish we make sure the data is already out there right you don't do things like that and then he become actually delusional he think that he's a Holocaust survivor he claiming that we're doing things like this yeah let me ask our director for a second if he can go on a wide shot and I don't know if you can get everybody on all at once but I wonder in the midst of your lecturing to your students whether any of you and I'm sorry I know I get too touchy-feely here but I mean this is what our subject is about tonight anybody started to cry or broken down or just had an emotional moment where you were overcome anybody Michael I see you nodding yep what happened what happened sometimes I'll be talking about not just the science but the denial then not denial industry and the things that fossil fuel interests did to lead us astray that are so like what the tobacco industry did decades ago to lead us astray on the health impacts of tobacco and and I'll tear up especially when I'm talking to an audience of young people because you know what a terrible injustice we've done them or we've allowed others to do them by misleading them on what is arguably the greatest challenge we face as a civilization and sometimes I tear up just describing that talking about that well one of the ironies of this program is I can't recall the time I laughed as much as I did yeah this is what people that do things like this and kind of very strange to emotional isn't it you may call me much no but really I sleep very well so you want to hear more authoritative statements from global warming now let's start with IP si si US EPA or global change research right IPCC is very fond of putting out this curve they say that on your left you have a lot of this orange line and the red curve they are all model calculation and then the black curve is actually observation they can explain everything okay if they include the carbon dioxide and then on the Left this blue one include only the yeah on the right yes that you include only the volcano and the solar oh you wouldn't do anything because deviate and I have to tell you if anybody have any understanding of statistics this is actually an abuse of Statistics and also statistics I'm not interested I'm interested in physics you notice that you need that a plot they always plot this thing called the temperature anomalies it's this which is a very strange world is actually a temperature deviation from some averages okay but if you plot in the actual temperature unit temperature the ice freezes at 0 degree isn't it the highs get boy 100 degree if you plot in a natural unit look the dotted nine now is actually the observation and then the data the model calculation is all over the place but when you do a temperature rmally you actually squeeze them together you hide it so your data look very impressive I think rule number one in science that you don't oversell your results so in fact they should have show this plot but they never ever show this plot it took them a long time until 2012 that first plot like such kind appear it has to be done by amateur scientists okay to make those kind of plot and of course myself but I don't need to publish paper like that so u.s. global change research it's actually a well-known one because they are now making a fuss out of this report right being something important and is again President Trump so on and so forth but among the stuff that they show is that they take all this result from IPCC and they show you that look in say no temperature anomaly they can plot the temperature unit in absolute unit Fahrenheit actually somebody they're really crazy that they convert the unit of anomaly a change to actual unit that's how bad it is EPA is doing the same thing that is wrong actually by the way so I ask the question where is the peer review if by the way this is a phenomenal very serious it's gonna kill sign in my humble opinion because it's not about peer review anymore it's all power review system and it's very very urgent a very very dangerous if you care about sign you really need to speak out so it's really true it's from the basically anomalies instead of showing all those ranges there's somebody foolish think that you can convert this in absolute unit but these things are not representing that at all okay I hope you understand that and this is just another example to remind you the model is all over the place they have too much eyes too little eyes and all that kind of stuff even when they have too much ice okay I'm gonna some of the water and throw into the ocean is showing you that the climate modeling is in a very big trouble stay then that was long ago maybe about 10 years ago but now I want to show you even more recent example this is a very prestigious lecture in JP au and carrot act one common dude over come on is a very good proof that my sister from from Caltech that this guy was giving a talk and he was taught thing about carbon dioxide and temperature change for 800,000 years from Antarctica but the problem is the ice core data is showing you the temperature anomaly the difference do you understand is showing you the difference between certain mean period so if the change is the change of a temperature but some this this scientists so-called scientists in 2017 was converting 0 to 32 degree Fahrenheit I hope you get it please this is very simple kind of goofiest like I'm not I don't want to laugh at him but it tell you that this is how the illusion of the whole feel is this is supposed to be the next but talking to public audience because they want to make sure that you're more familiar you can feel the temperature right you know this but nonsense again so this is the kind of important public policy question right if it's so important why they keep pulling out all these stunts the graphical kind of stuff remember I tell you I don't believe in this persuasion business you know science is all about evidence evidence evidence and data so the question is can the climate model simulate if you think climate model is important because that's what they use for policy right for next hundred years they see now doesn't matter you don't even need to validate the model actually they say all I can say if I increase carbon dioxide is gonna warm for the next hundred years okay but let me do another test okay we simulate something simple quarters seasonal cycle in the climate temperature data so I'll show you that if you plot the information of the seasonal cycle of the temperature northern hemisphere temperature from about 50 years for 50 years you plot something on the vertical axis called the amplitude you know how large the season number is and then the phase the timing of the peak whether this you know summer warming and winter cooling so nothing when it comes you see that the data the climate are the climate model data is all over the place so let's see if they can hit the jackpot where is the observation right so the observation is right here oh they miss it by a lot it's both I'm n I'm gonna throw my thing I wanna throw my dog ignore hit somebody right so season is very serious come on listen what I just told you the my model cannot produce a seasonal cycle and they tell you that know something about the climate system isn't it ok then another serious scare that they always do is that they say oh the last hundred and fifty thousand years ago that's a period called the Eemian Warm Period because remember now we're living in a period Co interglacial called the Holocene and then 20,000 years ago we live in an ice age right when the ice is about to mount stick in Boston and New York and reach as far south as Delaware I saw a lot of ice so the big swing the climate system going up and now but every time they talk about season every time they talk about other other warm period they used the Eemian the 150 thousand years ago one hundred fifteen thousand years ago but I want to remind you that it's completely different Eemian from now because now you have this solid curve our seasonal amplitude change my only 90 watt per meter square but immun was the orbit was less circular so it's more eccentric so therefore the seasonal cycle is changed by 230 watts so every time they talk about even a main being equivalent like because they say even all the Greenland ice sheets melt but there's a very different condition from now it doesn't mean that the Green Line i should mount again of course and then i want to do another test about climate model because according to them they if one model is wrong that's okay you know why because we're taking a very a lot of averages right this is actually a quote that is slightly embarrassing I don't wish them embarrassing him but but he actually say it is by a professor of chemistry from Rice University of course a Nobel Prize that he say you know the sobering conclusion about future warming using climate model are based on these elaborate models right is usually now is usually wisest suspicious to be suspicious or computer model you have complex situation but we're not talking about one scientist model is a number of program gives similar results with that let me challenge the professor Co but I ask you to look if I have all this bunch of passenger jets do you want to know what the average passenger jet is and if I show you what you go on it right so it's mean that if you average all the result that is wrong it doesn't mean that you're gonna get it right right you're gonna get it more wrong I don't know what it is here's what the average passenger jet look like right so I don't think we want to take that jet right I hope we can send out go on that one so it's a very simple proposition if you really think that you can solve the problem like that you give me a faster computer right but I want to point out that there are many Foley's just two example to show you the problem of current day today 2019 what kind of problem we have in climate model here's one example the first example is to ask the question how well can the GCM which is the global circulation model which is a global climate model right how well can they simulate cloud structure but on your right is observation on your left is a GCM right the computer model it really don't agree - well isn't it right you cannot simulate the cloud you're going from 90 South South Pole to North Pole you go vertical height right from surface to basically high up install the co2 per sphere right it's very bad and then you ask the simple thing how about sea surface temperature more or less similar if you compare this is actually a calculation and then you compare with the difference with the observation you can see that large part of the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean are cool by relative to actual observation for 5 degrees Celsius that's quite large by doing so for climate model I have very simple proposition that most of the time they got the right result for the wrong reason and then people like to say GIGO you go affect the well-known GIGO effect is garbage in garbage now for me that's not a problem it's garbage in Quebec I'll just ignore it right it's garbage in gospel how is the problem I'm very funny at the end now so--but please be patient the thing I want to show now is basically about Sun Sun climate connection which is my area of study the picture is just to give you the essence that the Sun is powering all the energetic in the system the typical story how IPCC would say Sun is not important is to show you graph like this they use a console call radiative forcing according to them carbon dioxide give you one point eight to what per meter square over the last two hundred sixty years and then the Sun give you only 0.04 watt per meter square games over right really they win by clapping because if this is true if this is how the climate function is to look at the proto you know the change in the system all the time and not even think about season this is why they avoid season okay and that's the reason the same information you can plot it like this because the client the Sun is indeed the big giant gorilla in the climate system this is actually a very nice picture of the Sun in x-ray taken by my some colleagues from my workplace in x-ray so to finish off I want to show you another way those that came and saw me last night at the library in a church in Woodside California that I show a way to study our Sun climate connection which is to say that because the Tomomi though they Leda is very confused if you take the urban data as you don't know what it means so you take some rural station so you study that to see whether there's any implication of the Sun effect that I think I show that there is some effect and we published paper on that this is another way to look at it so my proposal for tonight is to say that if you want to study the Sun affects on this climate system you better don't go and study the temperature during the night isn't it am i right so you studied during the daytime maximum that's basically the question I think I should skip a lot of this slide but I want to show you a bottom line it's not a good idea at all to study the Sun at the temperature during the night for the Sun effect because at the night you tends to form this thing that there's a core stuff near the surface and the warm stuff so you have what you call a boundary layer so the atmosphere and the surface are not so connected because the moment is sitting on the surface during daytime it's a lot more easier to study this right because more connected to the surface okay so it's really an amazing simplicity it's just something the haunches that I say you study the Sun effect during daytime maximum daily temperature if actually not so cloudy guess what happened you might be able to see something like this the blue curve is the temperature maximum the late daily temperature maximum from the United States versus the solar irradiance the red curve if you don't believe that you also can see that in Canada if you don't believe that you can see roughly of that picture in Mexico okay and then finally because the metric that I measure is called a solar irradiance it's actually giving you information about the sun's incoming radiation more or less near the surface I more or less near the atmosphere at the top there's a basic problem that we have a problem because this is the hardest science problem for climatology which is to understand cloud what does it do what does it does it change more because I can cloud there's so many type you know that sort of thing so do we have evidence to see that the effect of the Sun at this upper atmosphere reach all the way to the surface that is extremely hard to find the data it turns out that I was able to find one set of data okay that shows that that the radiation does reach the surface if I plot some of the temperature data with the ground solar radiation it shows some kind of correlation similar picture that you call from this period you warn 1930s 40 you cool in the 70s you warm up again okay so my takeaway message tonight is this there are simply no experimental data to support the view that the earth is changing in a very strange way or dangerous way by carbon dioxide by the sign by whoever you know and then one thing that we are sure carbon dioxide is just a bit player in the climate system so the idea that you can have this carbon dioxide knob that turning up and now is just an illusion right because the imagine that this is a climate knob that you just adjust the thermometer up and down I will say X right basically not true and I don't know how many of you know about this case or you are interested the US EPA apparently have to rule that the carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and we have this conservative justice the pathway justice Scalia during 2007 actually April 7 the decision was gritch in in a US Supreme Court that rules that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and therefore US EPA must regulate they have no other options this is a very sad decision that I think we should try to fight but according to Justice Scalia if you think that everything airborne from frisbee to fetch ill and qualify as a pollutant right if you if you co2 is unparalleled a pollutant then even frisbee and an F at Toulon should be qualify as a pollutant so therefore this is really the statute that defy common sense so a bit of update is actually Sam Alito just gave a talk somewhere in climb on colleges a few years ago that simply say that really carbon dioxide is never ever a pollutant this is very strange this one do they want to change the reality by using this human law not the physical law co2 could never ever be an air pollutant this is really a messy business by the way this is telling you something is very stranger and then my third point is that the Sun is in my humble opinion is primary driver of climate change and one should study as much as possible again I do not make the claim that we have found the evidence I'm merely showing you that there's a lot of interesting Hin I want to study and understand the exact way in which time the Sun affect the earth system including sea level change all this other stuff and then you have to remember climate model that famous thing that tools they actually come out to I say so misleading is really not like knife at all where you can use the chart we can do so many things including you can do so many thing this climate model is almost useless in my humble opinion it's supposed to be some kind of a pedagogical to some to to learn you know but it's not for forecasting at all it's simply not ready right because they cannot represent a lot of these physics and chemistry and all this problem that's what the problem is climate model it can never be used for public policy no matter how many people say ever no matter what the supreme court is saying this is my last slide my last sight is to quote a good friend of mine by the name of Professor Richard Linton retired already from MIT because it's a bit fed up he need a rest he really said that this problem is rather serious really he say when a historian what what historian would definitely wonder about in the future century is how deeply flawed logic obscure by shrewd and Atlantic propaganda actually enable a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone except lucky few like us right in the word that carbon dioxide from human industry was a dangerous planet destroying toxin you will remember as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world that carbon dioxide co2 the life of plants was considered a time to be a deadly poison okay I finished thank you [Applause] thank you doctor soon we're quite pleased to have dr. bloom who has kindly agreed to comment he is professor emeritus at the Kavli Institute for particle astrophysics and cosmology at the Stanford lunar linear accelerator laboratory at Stanford University he's a fellow of the American Physical Society he was a member of this of the slack that's the linear celebrit ory team with jerome friedman Henry and Kendall and Richard Taylor who received the Nobel Prize in Physics he received his PhD in physics from the California Institute of Technology he's the author of numerous scientific papers and the recipient of the senior scientist award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation [Applause] good evening everyone [Music] and I think I appreciate greatly dr. singh's discussion and mine will be more boring so I was trained as a particle physicist in particle research for about 25 did particle research for 25 years and led a number of projects and built a few large experiments during this phase of my career search and I have published extensively in the field particle physics is the laboratory science that is experiments can be repeated in a controlled way by more than one group to check results in different laboratories research is open with free exchange of ideas and results particle Theory is held to high standards of falsifiability except for string theory which has essentially nothing to predict about current and past laboratory based experiments since particle physics discoveries usually have no direct impact on society or our economy for many years and a recent exception actually was the world wide web that was invented by particle physicists at CERN in Geneva Switzerland and it was brought to slack by a physicist in my group by the name of Paul Koontz and slack he made slack the first website in the United States national politics has a small footprint on our work and the u.s. budget is about 1 billion a year for the do we NSF so we are we are left to do our work I was a member of the team as David mentioned that discovered quarks as the basic guts constituents of proton and neutron this was accomplished using high-energy electron scattering experiments on protons and neutrons had slack from 1967 to about 1972 it took about 20 years for the three senior leaders of our team Freedman Kendal and Taylor the win a Nobel Prize in 1994 the great for this great advance in fundamental physics much work was done all over the world verified the quark paradigm before the prize was given many experiments and verified theoretical predictions have proven quarks to be one of the fundamental building blocks of matter in about 1990 I changed my field of research to particle astrophysics and astrophysics I was active in astrophysics for 25 years and helped build two satellite based telescopes an x-ray telescope and a gamma-ray telescope and made many observations and published extensively in the field astronomy astrophysics has a minimal impact again on society in our economy in the short term however this field of study has more impact politically than particle physics there is a much larger budget of NASA as compared to the u.s. particle physics budget about a factor of 10 and much of this money goes to private companies to support the NASA mission of space exploration in science so again even with this larger or 10 billion and 15 billion number national politics have a relatively minor impact on our scientific work there are no alarmists and deniers about theories in astronomy and astrophysics the closest the theory comes to predicting the end of humanity possibly in the near future is the direct asteroid hit which implies a neat early warning using astronomical instruments nobody disagrees with this precaution and the cost for due diligence is not large astrophysics is an observational science one can really repeat laboratory based experiments to check on Astrophysical observation of the stars galaxies our galaxy galaxy clusters cosmic microwave background etc considerable input from physics like cat classical physics quantum mechanics general relativity that has verified in laboratory experiments and astronomical observations and expected to hold true throughout the universe is very important in this field it's used extensively astrophysics is an observational science astrophysics is an observational science that deals with complex nonlinear phenomena like the origin and evolution of the universe research is open with free exchange of ideas and results in many cases observational data is open to the public you can go to the web and download this data yourself and you can get help from NASA to analyze the data and you can publish it if you get the peer review and people you know outside those that actually build instruments and take the observations directly do this work many similar objects to study in astronomers and astronomers NASA physics search for patterns so there's thousands of objects and you can look for statistical similarities and such this has a similarity to botany except botany involves direct accessible experiments some success with theory for example general to these description of the universe stellar modelling and other examples but theory is usually incorporates a lot of phenomenology and frequently need serious Corrections as more observations are made it is hard to make predictions that can accommodate new data even though this phenomenology can be based on observations of many different examples of class of objects for example stars black holes active galactic nuclei etc Astrophysical theories are difficult to falsify frequently when new measurements contradicted Theory modifications to the theory are made to incorporate the new data without changing the basic paradigm an example of this is the Big Bang cosmology which in its original form did not incorporate dark matter or dark energy until after they were well established by independent Astrophysical and astronomical observations even though it is difficult to apply falsification criteria - genomica theories progress is made through open and vigorous discussion and cross fertilization of different theories based on existing observational data and predictions for future observations in my view this type of openness is a prerequisite for keeping a scientific discipline from going off the rails after I retired from Stanford in 2016 I started to study natural and anthropogenic climate change I have read listen I've learned a lot I'm like a graduate student again in a certain way but I am NOT an expert near the level of dr. Soong I am not published we're done original research in this field climatology is an observational science we have one earth and one climate climate is a hopelessly complex nonlinear theory as such the Earth's climate is chaotic on all timescales from short-term weather to long-term climate there is no natural way to separate weather from climate at some well determined timescale the nonlinear nature of the problem implies that predicting the future only weakly depends on what has been observed in the past the only way to potentially predict the future with current technology is via computer simulations of what will happen based on fitting past earth climate using classical physics and quantum mechanical inputs for example putting in the greenhouse effect of co2 and then letting time move to the future in the simulation considerable input from physics again is necessary classical physics quantum mechanics which has been separately verified many there are many climate historical at effect artifacts to study Willie's talked about a number of them ice cores historic temperature readings etc large number none of this history necessarily applies to the future but it is most useful to testing models that hope to predict the future reproducibility of historical data has been an issue with frequent upgrading changing of historic data sets depending on the bias of the investigator producing the new and better dataset unfortunately frequently climate data is not open will he spoke to these issues sketchy some a sketchy success with theory which incorporates phenomenology and gross approximation and frequently need serious Corrections as more observations are made and new climate physics is learned it has proven almost impossible to make predictions that can successfully accommodate new data given present technology just reference Al Gore and I'll give you another example below research is contentious with too much proprietary delay of ideas and results scientists are labeled as alarmist and deniers and particularly deniers are attacked in the mainstream media and by many politicians no matter what the credentials of the researcher it is difficult to falsify climate change predictions which is made much more difficult by the highly politically charged culture of the field politicians are clearly heavily in this mix in my view this lack of civil exchange and openness and research is sending climate change science of the rails so climatology in particular the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change has a major impact on our society and our economy in the short and longer-term getting the science right is thus important for obvious societal reasons politics should be kept at arm's length to allow the scientists to openly and dispassionately do their work so now I'd like to talk a little bit about the IPCC reports of pending doom the worst case IPCC see models predict runaway eating of the earth over the next 50 plus years due to anthropogenic driven climate change greenhouse gases and and other effects the IPCC recommendations murdered by mainstream media and by many politicians demand very expensive and disruptive actions starting now to limit the emission of greenhouse gases to avoid catastrophe many experimental results do not support this urgency of action they indicate that we likely have more time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and this is a good thing a good book that gives a more moderate and in my view realistic view is beyond smoke and mirrors by Professor Burton rector winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1976 recently deceased and he was a colleague of mine who I knew well it's an education an education educational book for the interested laymen one of my favorite papers is by John our Christian Elle it's called examination of space based bulk atmosphere temperatures used in climate resort research I found this to be an outstanding and very careful paper very difficult to go through it has a tremendous number of details the paper shows how difficult and complicated is to measure the Earth's temperature some of my colleagues have slack oh it's it's just average all these temperature you know the measurements it's trivial actually said this is trivial not trivial systematic errors are a major issue in this paper the author's state that models our over predicting temperature increase in the tropical zone that's plus or minus 20 degrees latitude and they measure the profile as you go up to your earth up and they show how the climate models have a very difficult time reproducing that and they say we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation in the models of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle that is water vapor precipitation physics and cloud feedbacks are likely candidates for this agreement so here is a a graph which was presented by John Christie and his testimony to Congress in February 2016 you have a copy of his testimony and the materials ever given to you it really is a great thing to read it's it's easy to read actually and compares the model to data and you see the the data is that inspires and they go over a time period for satellite dead in 1979 to 2015 and balloon temperature data 1975 79 to 2005 and then some average of all the IPCC models are given as a red curve and you see that they are dramatically over predicting today the measurement of the balloon and the satellites and this is a quite a large factor interestingly enough there's this Russian model I indicated which does pretty well so there's a lot of freedom it has to do with the sensitivity to the forcing from carbon dioxide and if you make that forcing not so much you can get better agreement with the data now here's an example unfortunate example of climate change science of the rails a John Christie leaves his office floor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville was targeted by gunshots over the net over the National March for science weekend in April 2017 when some people cannot argue facts they resort to violence to get their way it doesn't matter that we don't deny global warming the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvement in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy that's a quote from dr. Mary Spencer commenting to the press about this this incident thank you for your attention I would like you to present the best argument that you found most persuasive to support the dangerous antropomorphic anthropogenic global warming and also one argument the best one against it that you find the most persuasive one for one against and also I'd like to ask you what is the in you know within the science scientific community what percentage of scientists truly are scared and they believe that we're destroying the planet because of the co2 emissions okay I can't stop first in terms of the most convincing argument huh it's a hard task but I think the best one is probably the one I show that correlation of a temperature with the carbon dioxide but unfortunately I already know the problem there is the carbon dioxide measurement is okay is the global temperature measurement that is completely controlled by mostly the urban heat island effect for example so it's not a valid data in that sense the heat island effect is yes the effect of urban areas on temperature measurement yeah it goes up that's why if you use the let's say satellite data you know that it's not going to show the effect so sorry I give them the best case I can and then the most convincing case I guess for that is NaN Alam is basically that you just look up the planet Earth it's come it's actually over the last we have data for maybe almost 20-30 years now that if you measure the leaf index the greenness of the planet you can do that kind of measurement reasonably well no errors and a lot of stuff but we know we can monitor the planet does get mean greener so that's essentially telling you that carbon dioxide effect you cannot find it in terms of temperature where the polar bear whatever you want right Pizza a number of pieces are being eaten by ogo but it's basically the it's a very benign gas it's a beneficial gas for the human so that's about all I can say right tell you thank you well to me yeah falsifiability is very important in testing theories and as I mentioned it's difficult to do in climate change but I'm used to that because astrophysics has similar issues and I um but I'm very impressed by this John Christie al paper and to me that shows that the temperature is rising very much as compared to what 97% of the scientists say is happening and I having carefully gone up his paper I agree that his results are probably correct um with respect to dangerous I think that ver grifters book is a good resource there what he talks about is the growth rate of fossil fuel use a modest amount and how it goes for the next 50 60 80 years and what we would be facing there's you know urban legends about New York City in about 1915 and there was all this horse manure in the streets oh yeah they're removing two and a half tons of horse manure a day and then people started projecting well if this keeps on going like this we're gonna be up to our eyeballs and this better or every day yep and something came along good a new technology called the internal engine and fossil fuels and that really solves the problem so that's to me the issue yeah or the wheel or I imagine killing all the wheels we come from a fully renewable hundred percent renewable you know a few hundred years back we go now and then come along we found fossil fuel use it and another one has to go back he makes sense actually about the lady right here okay doctor soon I I don't think I caught what your intention was on one data pair set you presented namely on temperature and water or water vapor concentrations and I forgive me I think I must have misunderstood he appeared to be saying that temperature was a function of water vapor isn't it the other way around the higher the temperature the higher the dew point oh you could be right on that point too it depends on what causes the each of the variable fuss so example again that's exactly a very good question right for example I would say that for example one of my hypothesis that's the way that the Sun will hit the climate system is actually causing the water vapor to evaporate and then therefore couple with the temperature field right something to that extent that needs to be studied carefully but just to say that to dismiss it out of hand is always a very bad idea in that sense that's about all I say actually thank you I think the scariest thing for me in this is that this isn't the first time I've seen science co-opted by politics I was a scientist when the aids theory was politicized as a scientist currently what do you think we can do to change this to get people back to science based testing based laboratory based work I it really does scare me because I the last good big project was the Manhattan Project in my opinion well a lot of this has to do with the scientists themselves and you know the training at least that I as a scientist was these ideas of openness and sharing data etc they talked about and to me that is essential to making progress now if there are models that one could have like the Manhattan Project doesn't have to be like the Manhattan but not be that big but one could think about having National Laboratory where you had a mixture of people and a very strong director who kept the beasts and heard it again and which had resources in computing and other resources travel money etc and it would be a team effort a large team effort one thing that strikes me about the efforts in climate religion is that they tend to be more individual investigator driven and this is a very big problem for that it seems to me a more organized way of doing it which is let's say bills on history what would be useful my very brief reply is to talk about these issues and please tell more people for example get more books from independent Institute and talk to all of us spread the news about this question if they say that global warming is true ask them how do you know that have you look at a temperature record do you find that the scientists that are siding with global warming are actually true climate scientists haven't had a lot of experience with scientists of that type but I have had experience who are climatologists but I've had experience with colleagues who for example wouldn't allow me to invite a skeptic scientist to talk at a colloquium and I do have friends who won't come to talks like this because they say a denier is talking ok so this is I think if you look at the media you have to believe that there's this a tremendous amount of pressure in one direction well short answer is that there are some really good climate scientists still around and believe in this IPCC global warming paradigm but I would say majority of them are not real scientists in my humble opinion because you know why they don't shed it out I don't want to discuss it don't debate it on they don't do everything that scientist is supposed to do and that is a problem and I don't understand that actually I like them to talk to running things like that it's terrible and so is there anybody doing anything to help the children because I know with my kids growing up I mean their math equations now are done with equations that are presuming that climate science that the the false science is true so my kid I mean they're getting brainwashed they're doing these carbon dioxide equations and how much can you do and how much you know what are your parents doing wrong that's their math what are they doing wrong how are they harming the planet with the assumption that all of this global warming is absolutely true and the books are getting written that way that is there anything are there any scientists out there that are changing that wave these kids can move forward or just brainwash they they want to cry you know what they thinks going on I'll say something it it is indeed very alarming that you have really this these processes began who say he already decades ago the train has left this but then it's really never too late just to realize that these people who want to insist that this paradigm of global warming climate change is disastrous is gonna kill the planet and so and so and then teach them in school and then teach only a very one-sided direction the only thing I'm against is that one-sidedness yes remember that right I don't say that I'm right but I'm saying you have to provide a lot more balance to that and not only that without that perspective these kids are not above any critical thinking I have to say your own sister is doing some of that I myself is going to a Kem Constitution next week right we're trying our best some kids come when to come good it's a small game but you can tell more people that you should set up more chem like that to teach kids in the summer I don't mind coming I mean I don't mind doing that talking to kids but truly it's very very important they already many step hits all my colleagues from our island realize that they have started this thing called green school project all from the United Nations and the Greenpeace type of stuff already way back in 1997 us lucky that we only started 2009 for example this green scooting and if you look at the syllable is really scary these kids are beginning to talk about you know no point of the doing days we're gonna go protest every Friday and Baba and this is actually crazy and they're by the way I have checked this issue for example the most famous in this movement is great at um book and there is a link back to our Gaza group if you want to know more please ask me now I done a lot of research on this topic but let's not get into that now and then doctor soon great talk dr. blue mentioned some Russian work I don't know if you're familiar with the paper by Dimitri Souter suitor Croft in November of 2009 and which he proposed some pretty logical reasons why co2 is a lagging indicator of temperature variation not a leading indicator and what he says is that as the planet warms up due to the increased Sun activity in the oceans absorb less carbon dioxide to get more co2 during the next cooling cycle which is going to occur when will be much more dangerous to the planet then as a lagging indicator the co2 will drop are you familiar with our paper and do you agree anyone that tried to propose something as complex as a comet and claimed that they have known all of that I'm a bit skeptical but but it's in general the question is basically what is control the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere clearly that the ocean has something to do with it right it's a bit like your coca-cola no it's how KooKoo colada all the more gas I mean and then all the co2 go into the air and that effect is real unfortunately the change in signs it's all about numbers not enough but but there is a portion of it it's the common error changes is caused by changes of the warming of the ocean for example right but in on a very long orbital timescale let's say every hundred thousand years the ice core data show convincingly that every time it is the current temperature that is changing first and then the carbon dioxide in the system in the biosphere in the ocean in the land surfaces respond to it up and down consistently for the last 800,000 years unfortunately our Gaza TV producer Laurie David published a student books a children book for HR I don't know 5 to 15 that try to put the graph label the graph in the opposite way saying that is the carbon dioxide going forth and then temperature response again ask me I have graphed the show I can give a thousand more talks anyway good enough thank you thanks again for your talk I was wondering we don't hear anything about the CFCs anymore and I was wondering what an entire industry was changed I mean all the refrigerants and safe ways and Albertsons and air conditioners have been changed because of what they told us about CFCs in the early 90s how can we don't hear anything more about that when they're continuing to vent CFCs are twelve are 22 in other places besides the United States I do have an answer for that let me state my best understanding this CFC the problem is actually the Banat is to basically say it destroy the ozone in the stratosphere right very simple answer ozone you have ninety percent in the stratosphere ten percent in the troposphere okay and all I need and they have been always focusing that is because of CFC there's a details about attaching to ice particle and break the chlorines and then chlorines reactive and break the ozone in the stratosphere I just say forget about all of that let's do a thought experiment Einstein says I got it can experiment take all the governor Co three the ozone now and ask yourself if the ozone will come back at all even if we have some CFC in an atmosphere how long you guys you think that you're gonna come back how long what I guess you're you've to quick it's actually very short it's not ten thousand years not ten though it's not one thousand years now hundred it's not ten it's a 150 days the time constant is very fast what they block your mind is that's why I tell you that that protocol that that policy was not necessary if you study history it was because DuPont was running out of the pattern for this control of CFC so they had to come up with HFC and all these other alternative is terrible manipulation and so every time when they say that CFC is a mantra protocol 1987 is the best example of how humanity all kumbaya come together and solve the rest of the whole problem there's never been a problem in a real sense I'm very sad to say that because I don't understand what the fuss is all about it's really dangerous actually yeah you know what you know why you can get this back right because they tell you as always you cannot turn off the Sun the process of making ozone is very efficient and very effective no matter I'll go cry and whatever you want to do Michael Mann want to Crichton you cannot do anything that the ozone will come back very fast and then 50 day that's artists give a question actually follow up on your ocean question and the ocean warming issues we hear with about that a lot has a cause and you haven't really addressed that and except in the last point it perhaps a following indicator do you have any further reactions to those that claim that the ocean and the dying coral in the seas is evidence of fast climate change if I understand your question correctly I hope you you understand what I just did in the experimental stuff on ocean acidification I mean that's essentially trying to address that aspect of the problem okay that in fact okay I have a very cute one if this is correct by the way everything I say is more or less correct it's basically say that for that problem for that class of problem I want to say do you want to outlaw the rain from falling down into the ocean you want to know why right because the acidity of the rainwater is if you measure acidity is on a pH scale of 0 to 7 to 14 0 to 7 is acidic 7 to 14 is basic the rainwater pH is and it's on a log scale logarithms are everything you need is a factor of 10 so the rainwater is 5.5 we're very acidic the average ocean is about very more basic eight point three eight point five roughly and then deep in the also do you want outlawed a what you call the the water deep water is actually very exiting upwelling exactly and they are very acidic you kind of stop that from doing that because you mix it up you're gonna certify isn't it it's actually very crazy proposition I actually I study into the history of this thing I will tell you more if you want to know it started with the oil company is in start or blah blah blah because you know all kinds of issues we all have studied that question of course what percentage of the land-based temperature monitoring sites are properly sited so that they're not influenced by abnormal heat sources it's a very good question we are doing some other work right now and I think better that we repair a report back some other time in unfortunately I think a lot of the station that is actually in big city is probably not as useful anymore in some sense and so you try to look for places where you actually can you think that probably will have some meaning because remember when you are measuring that you're not measuring climate isn't it you're not measuring anything quite a good temperature changes you are measuring something related to concrete all kinds of a building related to the shades related to all these other stuff that actually have nothing to do with the natural system in something Wow depends on how you define natural system human are the most natural thing you can find right we are nature actually you know much about carbon dioxide or water streaming but I do know that there's a lot of concern about the water level going up with the sea melting the North Pole etcetera what's your take on is this I need to find out should sell my beach house we we we talked a bit about that yesterday I don't want to squeeze that into these toils you'll go crazy right because so many topics and they will kick me out anyway we have a video that probably you asked Eragon young I think we have information on sea level and all these things that we're studying but the most important thing to remember that they make the claim by the way there's a lot of claim out there a lot of this claim by peer review paper by all these famous scientists and so on and so forth that says that the sea level have accelerated the change and sea level rise but I beg to differ you really need to look at the data and how they acquire the data so on and so forth they just simply no such evidence exists for to say that sea level is accelerating and there's a lot of confusion in this issue and one of the hardest part for scientists to do is to understand how does the ice sheets and glaciers play a role in the in the sea level changes okay but I just give you an idea the Earth System this is stuff that you really need to know geology you need to do all this other work okay I just give you a simple idea that a lot of the time they think that you require that you have a lot of ice sheets big ice sheets to provide the meltwater I found out that if you want it and then I want to ask another question how much can the sea-level changes all by itself without let's say ice sheets from water source you can you can raise the sea level by thermo actions expansion effect meaning when it's hotter is expand a little bit isn't it or you can change the volume of your ocean oh you can actually melt ice that is lock in the land or someplace and drop this water go in but I want to understand the most basic question how much can a sea level change without an ice sheet without a water source which is called a you static sea level it turns out that the now down the coastal region and all the all this underneath ocean weather especially a coastal stroke is quite porous and so you pick a place let's say in some long geological time a few hundred million years ago for example where there's no ice sheets in the pole north and south and then you try to determine as the how much sea level change them it actually changed by as large as 60 meter that's a lot okay that just tell you that you don't even require the met water to account for some of these numbers because we know that ice age last glacial maximum to now is about 120 meter so however it could be even explained by something else which mean the earth system is too complex really okay so but sea level change long story short Wow actually pressing a talk a bit of a sea level change in this book I think my question is simple what can we do to change to affect the change like in California here you have a congress that's like not representative of the people I mean people want one thing they decide they do the wrong thing how can we affect change I don't mind saying something so I think you have a lot of power in you if I can do this you can do this take a few of the slides that you're comfortable with talk to a kids go to a supermarket everything just talk and tell them Debbie is one of the best my good friend Debbie the sister is here just talk to everybody about this issue they keep talking about global wrong you ask them have you seen the data do you know that the moment of data is some of them is not so good well that's the problem they use word they use emotion they use all this other stuff we have to overcome that I mean especially school teachers who are supposed to be more responsible George Wright I just think that you have to say something instead I just sit around and not say anything and understand this problem say something yeah related question how many trillions of hours of brain power have been wasted on this and what would be better places to spend this human creativity and brain power Wow well it says a problem won't go away obviously yeah and it'd be nice if it was addressed in a more rational perspective that's my position you've both made the point that the dynamics of water vapor in the atmosphere is more important than co2 and actually dominates or should dominate in the models so you would expect that the scientists worldwide would be focusing their efforts on improving the modeling of water vapor in these in these models is that happening are we getting an international concentration on this problem or or what okay answer this yes in simple what no in fact if you ask me today this apparent reason I continue to be activated on this issue the state of the science today is very embarrassing we're not really for what at all we're walking backward like doing a moon dance I'll give you an example in 2000 year 2000 I was already just a postdoc and I went to this international conference doing an invited talk and I was outlining or the fundamental problem on climate modeling like not having the hydrogen hydrology right by showing you that even for the cloud cover when they could unquote they try to represent cloud cover is an equation that is just change tune some of the numbers they want to use okay like showing that the ocean things it's just crazy it's just you know the circulation supposed to go this way they go backward all this sort of thing right and that's mm I have a list of let's say 14 problem you asked me today how many of those 14 problem are improve or study carefully I would say none is going backward I remember that conference very well because you know why the person at that conference meeting that was very angry at me was IPCC chairman Sir John Hooton he say how dare you criticize IPCC and all that stuff I say why not sir I say the reason and they say oh we know about all this problem I say oh thank you very much you know about the problem because some of the problem does go back a long way even sixties for example they don't have enough wave heating so that the stratosphere is always over - cool - cool so when you compare an observation is completely off they say it don't matter and we're just gonna tune it and change and study the perturbation a change of it so that's why I don't need to know what the true state of the thing that's the way they behave they are against it and I answer Sir John hood and I say unfortunately sir or this problem will remain unresolved for a very long time if I don't talk about this thing and you can imagine this is it about science I was just supposed talk I'm not threatening I'm just saying what I understand and a published paper on that - of course we professor kirio Kondratiev which is a rector or simple book st. Petersburg University a good Russian scientist I want to thank our speakers for tonight and join me please also visit our website at independent org and we hope that you'll join with us in the future thank you very much [Applause] you

Channel: Independent Institute

Views: 159,261

Rating: 4.6932287 out of 5

Keywords: Climate skeptic, Climate realist, Global Warming, Science, Junk Science, IPCC, United Nations, Climate Alarmism, hurricanes, Extreme weather, Climate Hysteria, Fake Science, Climate Science, Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Sandy, Environment, Energy, Renewable Energy, Fossil Fuel, Carbon Dioxide, CO2, Little Ice Age, Hockey Stick, Sea Level, Arctic Ice, Medieval Warm Period, Ice Age, Global Cooling, Greenhouse Gas, Alarmism, Willie Soon, Elliott Bloom, Tornadoes

Id: 1zrejG-WI3U

Length: 108min 16sec (6496 seconds)

Published: Fri Aug 16 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/YehNahYer]

Excellent video if you want to get familiar with Willie soon. This guy is truly a hero and doesn't claim to have all the answers.